ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE

Legal Protections for Farm Animals During Transport

TABLE OF CONTENTS FEDERAL LAW 1 Introduction Twenty-Eight Hour Law 1 Federal Law In the 1800s, farm animals in the United States were transported Twenty-Eight Hour Law to market by railroad. Criticism of cattle transportation methods Equine Transport resulted in the introduction of a bill in Congress in 1871 to Animal Health Protection Act regulate the length of time animals can be transported before Federal Laws Addressing International rest must be provided.1 The bill was finally passed on March 3, Export of Livestock 1873, and became known as the Twenty-Eight Hour Law.2 The 3 Enforcement of Federal Law law has also been known as the “Cruelty to Animals Act,” the Twenty-Eight Hour Law “Live Stock Transportation Act,” and the “Food and Rest Law.”3 Equine Transport International Export of Livestock The version of the law passed in 1873 was a step forward in 5 State Law developing humane standards for the transportation of cattle, 6 Industry Standards sheep, and swine. In order to comply with the law, transport 7 International Standards companies were obliged to provide facilities at convenient places on their rail lines where feed, water, and rest could be furnished.4 Early pens and enclosures provided for this purpose were extremely crude and often poorly furnished.5 Many of the INTRODUCTION loading and unloading chutes were poorly constructed and Each year, millions of farm animals are transported throughout resulted in injury to the animals.6 Few of the pens provided for the United States and across our borders to various locations protection against rain or snow; some were not equipped with based on their “stage of production.” Animals are transported either feeding or watering troughs.7 The pens were often so for breeding, fattening, and slaughter, and often experience muddy that cattle would not lie down even to rest. Too often, pain, fear, and suffering as a result of their loading, travel, and the feed was dumped in the mud and animals were forced to unloading. Farm animals are frequently deprived of food, water, drink from contaminated mud holes.8 and bedding during transport and are subjected to crowded conditions in trucks. Sometimes, the conditions are so bad Nonetheless, the conditions under which livestock were during transport that animals become extremely stressed handled in transit were slightly improved under this law.9 and even die. Because of the potential negative impacts of Dissatisfaction arose among the shippers, though, because transportation on animal welfare, the issue has been addressed of the poor conditions and the frequent unloading of the (though inadequately) by federal, state, and international bodies. animals.10 As a result, numerous convictions for noncompliance

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT ❊ PAGE 1 ­­­­­­ with the 1873 law were obtained before the law was repealed (1) shall feed and water the animals at the reasonable and replaced by the present Twenty-Eight Hour Law, enacted expense of the owner or person having custody, except on June 29, 1906.11 The law was again repealed and reenacted in that the owner or shipper may provide food; amended form (but “without substantive changes”) in 1994.12 (2) has a lien on the animals for providing food, care, and custody that may be collected at the destination in the The text of the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, as amended in 1994, same way that a transportation charge is collected; and follows: (3) is not liable for detaining the animals for a reasonable period to comply with subsection (a) of this section. 49 U.S.C. § 80502. Transportation of animals (c) Non-application – This section does not apply when (a) Confinement – animals are transported in a vehicle or vessel in which the (1) Except as provided in this section, a rail carrier, express animals have food, water, space, and an opportunity for rest. carrier, or common carrier (except by air or water), a (d) Civil Penalty – A rail carrier, express carrier, or common receiver, trustee, or lessee of one of those carriers, or an carrier (except by air or water), a receiver, trustee, or lessee owner or master of a vessel transporting animals from of one of those carriers, or an owner or master of a vessel a place in a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory that knowingly and willfully violates this section is liable or possession of the United States through or to a place to the United States Government for a civil penalty of at in another State, the District of Columbia, or a territory least $100 but not more than $500 for each violation. On or possession, may not confine animals in a vehicle learning of a violation, the Attorney General shall bring a or vessel for more than 28 consecutive hours without civil action to collect the penalty in the district court of the unloading the animals for feeding, water, and rest. United States for the judicial district in which the violation (2) Sheep may be confined for an additional 8 consecutive occurred or the defendant resides or does business. hours without being unloaded when the 28-hour period of confinement ends at night. Animals may be confined The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) added regulations for – entitled “Statement of Policy under the Twenty-Eight Hour (A) more than 28 hours when the animals cannot be Law” in 1963.13 Today the law is enforced by the Veterinary unloaded because of accidental or unavoidable Services program of the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health causes that could not have been anticipated or Inspection Service (APHIS).14 Veterinary Services was originally avoided when being careful; and created by Congress in 1884 as the Bureau of Animal Industry, (B) 36 consecutive hours when the owner or person with the stated purpose of preventing the exportation of having custody of animals being transported diseased animals and providing means for the suppression and requests, in writing and separate from a bill of eradication of contagious diseases among domestic animals.15 lading or other rail form, that the 28-hour period be extended to 36 hours. Equine Transport (3) Time spent in loading and unloading animals is not In 1996, Congress amended the Humane Methods of Slaughter included as part of a period of confinement under this Act, requiring the USDA to develop regulations governing subsection. the commercial transportation of equines for slaughter.16 (b) Unloading, Feeding, Watering, and Rest – Animals being The regulations were not released until nearly six years later, transported shall be unloaded in a humane way into and one provision prohibiting use of double-deck trailers to pens equipped for feeding, water, and rest for at least 5 transport horses did not go into effect until December 2006, consecutive hours. The owner or person having custody of 10 years after passage.17 Provisions of the regulations include the animals shall feed and water the animals. When the separation of stallions and aggressive equines; adequate floor animals are not fed and watered by the owner or person space per animal to prevent injury; adequate food, water, and having custody, the rail carrier, express carrier, or common six hours of rest prior to transport; and, on conveyances for 28 carrier (except by air or water), the receiver, trustee, or consecutive hours, unloading for feed, water, and six hours of lessee of one of those carriers, or the owner or master of a rest.18 The USDA amended the horse transport regulations in vessel transporting the animals – 2011, extending protections to equines bound for slaughter

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT ❊ PAGE 2 ­­­­­­ but delivered first to an assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard.19 increased dramatically between 2010 and 2012, from fewer However, the regulations apply only to equines going to than 56,000 animals in 2010 to more than 180,000 in 2012.30 slaughter. Animal advocacy groups are attempting to extend The numbers have declined since 2014, with 97,000 animals the prohibition on double-deck trailers to transport of equines exported to countries other than Canada or Mexico in 2015.31 for other purposes, such as rodeos, through federal legislation.20 In September 2013, the USDA officially responded to AWI’s petition, indicating that it was in the process of updating its Animal Health Protection Act regulations “to better ensure the welfare and safety of animals In 2002, Congress enacted the Animal Health Protection Act during transport for export to foreign countries.”32 The revised (AHPA), which authorizes the USDA to restrict or prohibit the regulations were proposed in February 201533 and finalized in movement of animals for disease control purposes and, in 2016.34 The new regulations include many requirements that certain circumstances, to ensure humane treatment of farm should serve to improve the welfare of animals transported animals.21 Specifically, the law states, internationally, including fitness to travel criteria, means of “The Secretary [of Agriculture] may prohibit or restrict the humane euthanasia aboard vessels, replacement parts for major use of any means of conveyance in connection with the life support systems aboard vessels, and reporting of the number exportation of livestock if the Secretary determines that the of mortalities and injuries occurring during each voyage, as well prohibition or restriction is necessary because the means of as the nature of these deaths and injuries.35 conveyance has not been maintained in a clean and sanitary condition or does not have accommodations for the safe and proper movement and humane treatment of livestock.”22 ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS The AHPA also gives authority to the Secretary to conduct Twenty-Eight Hour Law investigations for the enforcement of the law, and criminal The 1906 act was a stronger law than that of 1873, and its 23 and civil penalties can be assessed for violation of the law. provisions were enforced immediately after passage.36 Waybills To date, the USDA has not used this authority to regulate the and records maintained by carriers and others were examined interstate transport of animals within the United States. daily.37 Apparent violations were reported at stations where USDA livestock inspectors of the Bureau of Animal Industry Federal Laws Addressing International Export of Livestock were stationed.38 The exportation of animals is addressed in Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91. Export regulations cover the Inspections were made at feed, water, and rest stations inspection of animals and the vessels used to transport them throughout the United States to ascertain whether the from the United States by sea.24 The regulations also address facilities and equipment were maintained for the safe and the handling and care of animals during the voyage.25 They humane handling of the species they were designed to require that animals intended for export by sea or air receive accommodate.39 Unsatisfactory conditions found at the a visual inspection from an APHIS veterinarian within 48 stations were promptly brought to the attention of the affected hours of embarkation, unless the importing country specifies railroads for corrective action.40 otherwise.26 The APHIS veterinarian is to reject for export any animal he or she finds unfit to travel.27 In the early years of the law, when shipments were by rail, there were about 900 feed, water, and rest stations operated by the In February 2011, AWI petitioned the USDA to adopt “fitness railroad companies; by 1990, the number had dwindled to about to travel” requirements for all farm animals exported from the 25, and many of these stations had not been used for several United States to any foreign country except those traveling years.41 As of 2017, the USDA identified only five feed, water, overland to Canada or Mexico.28 AWI recommended that the and rest stations remaining for the entire country.42 Reported USDA employ the fitness requirements included in the animal violations dropped as well, from nearly 400 cases in 1967 to fewer transport standards of the World Organisation for Animal than 100 in 1976 and none in 1988.43 With the increased use of Health (known by its French initials “OIE”).29 Exports of livestock trucks as a means of conveyance, there has been a steady decline (excluding poultry) to countries other than Canada or Mexico over the past century in the movement of livestock by railroads.44

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT ❊ PAGE 3 ­­­­­­ In fact, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the animals. However, Veterinary Services found insufficient as of 2012 no live animals were transported by rail.45 With the evidence that a violation occurred because the trucking diminished use of railroads for transport, the use of trucks has company stated that it told the driver to stop and rest the vastly increased.46 In recent years, nearly all transported livestock animals, and no physical evidence to the contrary existed.53 were delivered by for-hire or private trucks.47 The USDA determined that a violation occurred in six of the Over the years, animal advocacy groups became aware that the 11 investigations done from 2006 to 2019. According to the USDA did not apply the Twenty-Eight Hour Law to transport Twenty-Eight Hour Law, when the USDA finds a violation of by truck, and as a result, enforcement of the law had virtually the law, it is to submit the case to the Department of Justice ceased. In October 2005, a coalition of humane organizations (DOJ).54 However, the USDA reported only one of these submitted a petition for rulemaking to the USDA, requesting violations to the DOJ for further action. Over the years, the that the department promulgate regulations applying the USDA has made varying determinations about its authority Twenty-Eight Hour Law to the truck transport of animals.48 In under the law. In one, where 152 pigs died en route, the USDA preparing the petition, the groups found no reported USDA sent the violator a letter of warning.55 In another case, where administrative decisions involving the Twenty-Eight Hour the shipping company transported animals for 40 hours Law from 1997 onward and no reported federal cases involving without food, water, or rest, the USDA concluded that the enforcement of the law going back more than 40 years Department of Transportation was responsible for punishing (between 1960 and 2005).49 the company.56 In another investigation, the department determined it had no authority under the law.57 In later In 2006, the USDA responded positively to the petition, stating investigations, it appears that the USDA found violations of in a letter to the petitioners that “the plain meaning of the the law, but still fell short when engaging in enforcement. For statutory term ‘vehicle’ in the Twenty-Eight Hour Law (as instance, in 2017, the USDA issued an official warning against amended in 1994) includes ‘trucks’ which operate as express a carrier for at least 16 individual violations of the law. While carriers or common carriers.”50 At that time, the USDA said that the case was referred to the DOJ for investigation for criminal it had clarified the issue in a 2003 internal memo distributed to and civil enforcement, the DOJ ultimately determined there government veterinarians. was no criminal violation of the law. AWI’s FOIA request to the DOJ about its review of the case for civil violation enforcement To determine how the department handles violations of the law was inconclusive. The USDA ultimately concluded, “Although occurring on trucks, AWI submitted Freedom of Information Act we have authority to pursue penalties for this type of alleged (FOIA) requests to the USDA in 2009, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018, and violations, we have decided not to pursue penalties in this 2019. Records received through these FOIA requests revealed instance so long as you comply, in the future, with the 28 Hour 10 investigations into possible violations of the law from 2006 Law and regulations.” In 2015, the USDA sent a similar warning to 2019. Through online research, AWI found another USDA letter to a carrier with 23 documented violations of the law. investigation, bringing the total number of investigations to 11 within the 12-year period. This inconsistency is likely due to muddled enforcement authority, and a lack of direction from the USDA on how Two of the 11 investigations commenced because a 2010 USDA violations of the law should be handled. Additionally, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) notice instructed fact that in a 12-year period only 11 investigations occurred slaughterhouse inspection personnel to contact the Veterinary demonstrates an inadequate monitoring system in place to Services division of the USDA if they suspect animals may detect violations. Without a mechanism under the auspices not have been properly rested during transport.51 In these of either the USDA or the DOJ for monitoring truck transport, two cases, the USDA found no violation of the law. In one, an there is, for all intents and purposes, no federal transport law FSIS veterinary medical officer (VMO) noticed 33 “lethargic in the United States. and dehydrated” cattle as the animals were off-loaded from the truck into the slaughter plant.52 The VMO spoke with the AWI has found that the Twenty-Eight Hour Law is likely being driver, who stated that he did not stop to rest, water, or feed violated routinely by livestock transporters—especially those

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT ❊ PAGE 4 ­­­­­­ transporting cattle. The 2016 National Beef Quality Audit Within the last five years, an estimated 2,950,808 live farm revealed that in its small sample of the mean values for time animals (excluding poultry) were exported from the United and distance traveled, auditors found that the maximum time States to other countries. A majority of these traveled by land traveled was 39.6 hours over a distance of 1412.9 miles.58 This to Mexico or Canada, but a significant portion (720,412) were time period clearly exceeds the Twenty-Eight Hour Law unless shipped to their destinations by sea or air. Ocean voyages, the cattle were offloaded and provided time to rest. The study which may cover thousands of miles and last for weeks or even also revealed that a significant percentage of cattle arrived at months, are grueling and dangerous for animals. processing facilities with major bruises (45.1 percent of cows and 21.9 percent of bulls).59 Bruises on cattle are often the Press accounts and records received by AWI from the USDA via result of mishandling and other poor conditions during transit FOIA requests show that many of the long-distance exports or just before slaughter. from the United States are sent by sea if they involve large numbers of cattle, while exports involving smaller or more Equine Transport vulnerable animals (such as chickens) or lower numbers of The USDA established the Slaughter Horse Transport Program animals are by air. According to FOIA records, in recent years, (SHTP) in 2001 to ensure that horses traveling to slaughter are nearly all pigs, sheep, goats, and horses have left the country fit to travel and handled humanely during transport.60 From by air, while cattle have traveled by both sea and air. 2005 to 2010, the SHTP documented and investigated hundreds of violations.61 Annual funding of USDA inspection duties For the period of February 2016 to December 2019, AWI received related to horse slaughter has been completely prohibited records related to 37 shipments by sea. The records raised since 2007, in an effort to prevent horse slaughter plants from concerns regarding several shipments: (1) a voyage of unknown operating in the United States.62 According to the Government length to Sudan in which 27 heifer deaths were recorded (1.8% Accountability Office (GAO), although the domestic slaughter mortality rate), (2) a 41-day voyage to Turkey with 27 cattle of horses for human food has stopped, the SHTP continues to deaths (1% mortality rate), and (3) a 32-day voyage to Qatar operate.63 The GAO says the program continues to collect and with 98 deaths (a 3.2% mortality rate). The average rate of review shipping documents, and it inspects conveyances used mortality, however, was far below that, at just 0.6 percent. to transport horses.64 However, because of the prohibition on using federal funds for inspecting horse slaughter, the SHTP AWI notes several problems with implementation of the new may not inspect the condition of horses destined for slaughter rule with respect to its requirement that operators submit in Canada or Mexico.65 The GAO reports that the USDA reports about animal morbidity and mortality. While AWI conducted approximately 110 horse transport investigation received 37 export health certificates for animals shipped cases in 2006, versus approximately 50 cases in 2008 and 40 by sea during this period, it received only 24 corresponding cases in 2010. No additional public information is available operator reports documenting the number of animal deaths about the enforcement and/or monitoring activities of the during the voyage. AWI also noted that a number of records SHTP. AWI submitted a request for enforcement records in 2020 appear to be missing relating to the export of goats, sheep, that yielded no documents. A similar request for monitoring and lambs. According to the US Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade data is still pending at the time of publication. Statistics, from 2017 through 2019, approximately 59,000 goats, sheep, and lambs were exported internationally (excluding International Export of Livestock those sent to Canada or Mexico), but the records received by The USDA began enforcing its regulations relating to AWI document only 1,001—less than 2 percent of the total. international transport of farm animals by sea vessel in February 2016. The final rule adopts the OIE’s fitness-to-travel standards66 The records AWI did receive indicate that, from 2016 through and has several additional animal welfare safeguards. It also 2019, 287 farm animals died during international transport by requires that operators submit reports at the conclusion of each ocean vessel. However, given the volume of missing records, voyage documenting the length of the trip and occurrences of the actual number is likely higher. Of these 287 animals, the “morbidity and mortality” (i.e., disease and death). leading causes of death include injury due to bad weather, pneumonia, gastrointestinal issues, and pregnancy-related

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT ❊ PAGE 5 ­­­­­­ conditions. Only one record reported on disease occurrence, Maine,75 and New Mexico76) specifically reference transport by even though this information is required by the regulations. truck.77 In addition, a few states have enacted laws or regulations that limit the transportation of nonambulatory animals.78 Cattle were stricken with disease due to pregnancy-related conditions during several shipments. The USDA’s rule prohibits While most states have included transport in their anti-cruelty transport of pregnant farm animals “in the final 10 percent of laws, the impact is most likely minimal, particularly given the their gestation period at the planned time of unloading in the fact that more than half of the 50 states exempt customary importing country.” We have contacted the USDA to encourage agricultural practices from laws governing humane treatment it to better enforce this provision to prevent avoidable deaths of animals.79 There is some evidence of the application and during transport. We also asked the department about the enforcement of state anti-cruelty laws to transport incidents, lack of operator reports for some shipments and about some however. For example, two individuals hauling 11 horses operators’ failure to report on morbidity. through Arkansas on the way to a slaughterhouse in Texas were charged with multiple counts of animal cruelty under the Given the limited information received, it appears that Arkansas anti-cruelty statute when an employee at an auto enforcement of the law is mixed, but the reporting repair shop observed several horses with lacerations on their requirement has provided at least some mortality data where bodies and called police.80 before there was none. As it stands, the records indicate that the volume of animals exported from the United States by sea is low. No especially egregious incidents appear to have taken STATES WITH TRANSPORT PROVISIONS place in the wake of the 2016 amendments to the USDA’s live IN ANTI-CRUELTY STATUTES export regulations.

State Statutory Code Section

STATE LAW Arkansas 5-62-103(a)(6)

Approximately three dozen states include language specific to California CAL. PENAL CODE § 597a transport in their anti-cruelty statutes (see right). In most cases, Colorado 18-9-202(1)(a) the applicable provisions prohibit the transport of animals 67 in an “inhumane manner.” Three states (New Hampshire, Connecticut 53-249; 53-247(a); 53-252 Washington,68 and Wyoming69) prohibit transport in a manner District of Columbia 22-1002 that poses risk of injury to the animal or jeopardizes the safety of the animal. Vermont’s law only addresses “overcrowding” in Florida 828.12(1) a vehicle.70 However, in 2015 and 2016, the Vermont Livestock Hawaii 711-1109(1)(e) Care Standards Advisory Council wrote transportation guidelines for cattle and newborn calves that also provide Idaho 25-3505 cursory on-farm recommendations.71 Arizona limits its transport Louisiana 102.1(a)(1)(f) regulation to equines for slaughter.72 California also regulates the transportation of equines to slaughter.73 Maine 7-3981(5)

Massachusetts 272-77 For the most part, time limits for feed, water, and rest under the state statutes mirror the federal Twenty-Eight Hour Law: 28 to Michigan 750.50(2)(c) 36 consecutive hours of confinement are allowed before animals Minnesota 343.24(1)(a) must be unloaded for at least five hours of rest. As with the federal law, state laws addressing transport were passed when Mississippi 97-41-5 most animals were still being shipped by rail. Of 18 states that Montana 45-8-211(1)(b) have specific time limits for transport, only three (California,74

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT ❊ PAGE 6 ­­­­­­ federal school lunch program) to include the NAMI’s transport Nebraska 54-7, 104 criteria.83 The AMS expanded its transport criteria in 2013.84 Nevada 574.190 Of the NAMI’s seven core criteria for transport, suppliers to federal programs currently must pass two criteria with an New Hampshire 644:8(III)(d) excellent score, four criteria with an acceptable score, and one New Jersey 4:22-18 criterion with a perfect score each time an audit is conducted.85

New York N.Y. AGRIC. & MKTS. LAW § 359(1) The National Chicken Council (NCC), a trade association North Carolina 14-363 representing companies that raise broiler chickens, also has transport standards in its guidelines. The NCC Animal Ohio 959.13(A)(3) Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist, which has been Oklahoma 21-1688 widely adopted by the conventional chicken industry, includes several components relating to animal welfare before and Pennsylvania 18-5538 during transport.86 The audit contains requirements for Rhode Island 4-1-3(a) catching, conditions during transport, and emergency response planning, among others. Some major nonconformances result South Carolina 47-1-50(A)(2) in automatic audit failure (e.g., loss of bird from trailer), while Tennessee 39-14-202(a)(4) others are on a point scale that must exceed a certain level for a producer to fail. Texas TEX. PENAL § 42.09(a)(4)

Vermont 13-352(4) The National Turkey Federation (NTF), a trade association representing companies that raise turkeys, has transport Virginia 3.2-6570 standards in its guidelines too. The NTF’s Animal Care Washington 16.52.080 Guidelines are widely adopted by the conventional turkey industry and include components relating to catching and Wisconsin 951.05 transport of poults and mature turkeys.87 The audit includes Wyoming 6-3-203 requirements for training of crew members and truck drivers, appropriate driving and herding of birds, and ensuring that weather impacts are accounted for. The audit also has requirements for transport cage density and for ensuring that INDUSTRY STANDARDS equipment is in good repair. Unsecured cage doors and willful abuse are major nonconformances resulting in automatic While currently no federal law in the United States governs failure, but all other requirements are on a point scale. The NTF conditions during domestic transport, other than the does not indicate what score is required to pass the audit. maximum duration of travel before rest, the US meat industry has developed voluntary guidelines and audit criteria for the transportation of certain farm animals to slaughter. The North American Meat Institute (NAMI), which represents cattle, pig, INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS sheep, and turkey slaughter establishments, added cattle and Like the United States, many developed countries have had pig transport standards to its animal handling guidelines in animal transport laws in place for several decades or longer. 2010.81 The guidelines cover the following areas: set-up and The first directive of the European Union on the protection loading, timeliness of arrival and unloading, falls, electric prod of animals during transport was adopted in 1977.88 Since that use, condition of the animals, and willful abuse of animals.82 time, additional transport directives and regulations have been In 2010, the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) implemented. Council Regulation 1/2005, adopted in December revised its animal welfare requirements for companies that 2004 by the European Council, has now replaced these voluntarily supply meat for commodity programs (such as the older laws.89 It is hoped that this binding regulation, which

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT ❊ PAGE 7 ­­­­­­ encourages greater harmonization between member states, will OTHER REPORTS IN THIS SERIES result in more consistent enforcement of transport standards. Legal Protections for Farm Animals on Farms

In 1968, the Council of Europe produced the European Legal Protections for Nonambulatory (or “Downed”) Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Farm Animals Transport, which laid down the general conditions for Legal Protections for Farm Animals at Slaughter international transport and set special conditions for transport of animals by road, air, sea, and rail.90 The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe also adopted recommendations for the transport of individual species.91 The convention was revised in 2003, and a working party is now drafting the technical protocols for space allowances and water, feed, and rest intervals.92 As of March 2021, the convention had been signed by 15 countries and ratified by 14.93

In 2005, the OIE adopted welfare standards for the transport of animals by land,94 sea,95 and air96 that were drafted by the intergovernmental organization’s permanent Working Group on Animal Welfare. While the standards are nonbinding, the OIE’s 180 member states and territories are encouraged to implement them through the passage and enforcement of national legislation.

Canada updated its transport regulations in February 2019. The rules strengthened existing rules by requiring longer rest periods, redefining “non-ambulatory,” and better aligning the country with international standards.97 However, the law still allows extensive periods of confinement without feed, water, or rest. For instance, ruminants are allowed 36 hours of continuous confinement, horses and pigs are allowed 28 hours, and broiler chickens, spent hens (former commercial egg- layers), and rabbits are allowed 24 hours without water, or 28 hours without feed.98

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT ❊ PAGE 8 ­­­­­­ 1 Animal Plant & Health Inspection Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Agric., First 32 Letter from Joyce Bowling-Heyward, USDA-Veterinary Services to Federal Law to Prevent Cruelty to Animals, in Animals And Their Cathy Liss, President, Animal Welfare Inst. (Sept. 18, 2013). Legal Rights 49 (4th ed. 1990). 33 Exportation of Live Animals, Hatching Eggs, and Animal 2 See Harry Goding & A. Joseph Raub, Bureau of Animal Indust., Germplasm From the United States, 80 Fed. Reg. 10,398 (proposed U.S. Dep’t of Agric., The 28-Hour Law Regulating the Interstate Feb. 26, 2015) (codified at 9 C.F.R. pt. 91). Transportation of Livestock: It’s Purpose, Requirements, and 34 81 Fed. Reg. 12,2967 (Jan. 20, 2016) (codified at 9 C.F.R. pt. 91). Enforcement 1,1 (1918), https://www.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/28hour1918_0.pdf (last visited March 31, 2021). 35 9 C.F.R. pt. 91 (2016). 3 Vivian S. Chu., Cong. Research Serv., 94731 Brief Summaries of 36 Animal Plant & Health Inspection Serv., supra note 1, at 49. Federal Animal Protection Statutes 27-28 (2010). 37 Id. 4 Animal Plant & Health Inspection Serv., supra note 1, at 49. 38 Id. 5 Id. 39 Id. 6 Id. 40 Id. 7 Id. 41 Id. at 50. 8 Id. 42 Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., Feed, Water and Rest 9 Id. Stations, U.S. Dep’t Agric., https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-and-animal-product-import- 10 Id. information/ct_feed_water_rest_stations (last updated June 2, 2020). 11 Goding & Raub, supra note 2, at 2. 43 Animal Plant & Health Inspection Serv., supra note 1, at 50. 12 Chu, supra note 3, at 27. 44 Id. 13 9 C.F.R. §§ 89.1–89.5. 45 See Table 7. Shipment Characteristics by Two-Digit Commodity 14 Animal Plant & Health Inspection Serv., supra note 1, at 50. and Mode of Transportation for the United States: 2012—Con., Bureau Transp. Stat.. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/ 15 See Act of May 29, 1884, ch. 60, 48th Cong. (1st Sess. 1884), commodity_flow_survey/2012/united_states/TABLE7 (last updated https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/48th-congress/ May 20, 2017) (providing the statistics for live animal transportation Session%201/c48s1ch60.pdf (creating the Bureau of Animal in 2012). Industry). 46 Id. 16 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-127, 110 Stat. 1184. 47 Id. 17 9 C.F.R. § 88.3 (2011). 48 Gaverick Matheny & Cheryl Leahy, Farm-Animal Welfare, Legislation, and Trade, 70 L. & Contemporary Problems 325, 335 18 9 C.F.R. §§ 88.1–88.6. (2007) (referencing a letter From W. Ron DeHaven, the APHIS-USDA 19 Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter, 76 Fed. Reg. Administrator, to Cheryl Leahy acknowledging that the 28-hour Law 55,213 (Sept. 7, 2011). includes transport by trucks); see also Letter from Cindy J. Smith, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., Administrator, to Tom 20 See Horse Transportation Safety Act of 2009, H.R. 305, 111th Garrett, Animal Welfare Inst. (Oct. 2, 2009) (acknowledging that Cong. (2010) (prohibiting the transport of horses in a motor vehicle “APHIS recognizes that the text in the law referring to ‘a vehicle or “containing two or more levels stacked on top of one another”); see vessel’ includes trucks”). also Horse Transportation Safety Act of 2015, H.R. 1282, 114th Cong. (defining “motor vehicle” and imposing a civil penalty). Neither the 49 The Humane Soc’y of the U.S et al., Petition for Rulemaking to 2010, nor the 2015, Bills have been amended since their proposals.) Extend the Twenty-Eight Hour Law to Trucks (October 4, 2005). 21 Animal Health Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 8301–8322 (2002). 50 Letter from W. Ron DeHaven, Administrator, to Peter A. Brandt, Esq., The Humane Soc’y of the U.S. (September 22, 2006). 22 7 U.S.C. § 8304. 51 Food Safety & Inspection Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Notice No. 23 7 U.S.C. §§ 8313–8314. 06-10, Humane Handling at All Entrances and the Twenty-Eight 24 9 C.F.R. § 91.12. Hour Law (2010). The content of the notice was later incorporated into the FSIS directive on humane handling. See Food Safety & 25 Id. Inspection Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Directive No. 6900.2, Humane 26 9 C.F.R. § 91.7. Handling and Slaughter of Livestock (2011). 27 Id. 52 Response from Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv. to Animal Welfare Institute (May 6, 2014) (on file with AWI) (regarding 28 See Animal Welfare Inst. & World Soc’y for the Protection of Freedom of Information Act request 2012-APHIS-00570-F) Animals, Petition for Rulemaking to Amend the Inspection of [hereinafter APHIS, May 6 Response]. Livestock for Exportation Regulations to Include Fitness for Transport Requirements (Feb. 18, 2011). https://awionline.org/sites/ 53 Id. default/files/uploads/legacy-uploads/documents/PetitiontoUSDAo 54 49 U.S.C. § 80502(d); See Chu, supra note 3, 27–28. nanimalexportsfinal-1298047206-document-36635.pdf 55 Response from Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv. to Animal 29 Id. at 2. For more information on the OIE and fitness for travel, see Welfare Institute (June 16, 2016) (on file with the Animal Welfare International Standards, infra at pg 5. Inst.) (regarding Freedom of Information Act request 2012-APHIS- 30 U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics, Dep’t of Commerce, 00570-F) [hereinafter APHIS, June 16 Response]. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx (last visited March 31, 56 Id. 2021). 57 APHIS, May 6 Response, supra note 44. 31 Id.

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT ❊ PAGE 9 ­­­­­­ 58 National Beef Quality Audit, 2016 National Beef Quality Audit 86 Nat’l Chicken Council, Animal Welfare Guidelines and Audit Market Cow and Bull Results, 6 https://www.bqa.org/Media/BQA/ Checklist for Broilers, https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/ Docs/nbqa-exec-summary_cowbull_final.pdf. wp-content/uploads/2020/03/NCC-Animal-Welfare-Guidelines_ Broilers_Dec2019.pdf. 59 Id. at 11. 87 Nat. Turkey Fed, NTF Catching and Transport Animal Care Audit 60 Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter, 66 Fed. Reg. (July 2018) https://ntf.membershipsoftware.org//Files/Animal%20 63,587 (Feb. 5, 2002) (to be codified at 9 C.F.R. pt. 88). Care%20Guidelines/Excel%20Files/NTF%20Catching%20and%20 61 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-11-228, Horse Welfare: Transport%20Animal%20Care%20Audit%20-%20UPDATED.xlsm. Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from 88 See Council Directive 77/489/EEC, 1977 O.J. (L 200) 10-16. Cessation of Domestic Slaughter 44 (2011). 89 For more information about transport laws in the European Union, 62 Id. at 3. At A Glance: EU Trade and Transport of Live Animals (2020) https:// 63 Id. www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2020/646170/ EPRS_ATA(2020)646170_EN.pdf (last visited March 31, 2021). 64 Id. at 9. 90 European Convention for the Protection of Animals During 65 Id. at 13. International Transport, Dec. 13, 1968, E.T.S. No. 65. 66 9 C.F.R. pt. 91. 91 See Human Rights & Legal Affairs,Texts and Documents, Council 67 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644: 8(III)(d). Eur., http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/ biological_safety_and_use_of_animals/transport/A_texts%20 68 Wash, Rev. Code § 16.52.080. and%20documents.asp#TopOfPage (last visited March 31, 2021) 69 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-203. (listing the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe’s recommendations for the transport of horses, pigs, cattle, sheep and 70 Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 352(4). goats, and poultry). 71 Livestock Care Standards Advisory Council, Transportation 92European Convention for the Protection of Animals During Guidelines for Cattle (2015), https://agriculture.vermont.gov/sites/ International Transport (Revised), June 11, 2003, E.T.S. No. 193. agriculture/files/documents/Animal_Health/Welfare/Cattle%20 Transport%20Website%20Final%20April%202016.pdf; Livestock 93 See Chart of Signatures and Ratifications of Treaty 193, Council Care Standards Advisory Council, Transportation Guidelines Eur., http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/ for Newborn Calves (2016), https://agriculture.vermont.gov/sites/ conventions/treaty/193/signatures?p_auth=QTD5u9Zm (last agriculture/files/documents/Animal_Health/Welfare/Calf%20 updated March 31, 2021). Transport%20Website%20Material%20Final%20April%202016.pdf. 94 World Org. for Animal Health [OIE] Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 72 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 3-1312. Chapter 7.3. (2016). 73 Cal. Penal Code §§ 597o, 597x. 95 World Org. for Animal Health [OIE] Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Chapter 7.2. (2016). 74 Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 16908. 96 World Org. for Animal Health [OIE] Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 75 Me. Stat. tit. 7, § 3981. Chapter 7.4. (2016). 76 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 77-9A-5. 97 Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Then vs. Now (Humane 77 See Animal Welfare Inst., Animals and Their Legal Rights: A Transportation Regulations) https://www.inspection.gc.ca/DAM/ Survey of American Laws from 1641 to 1990 (4th ed. 1990). DAM-animals-animaux/STAGING/text-texte/humane_trans_reg_ then_now_fact_sheet_1550526161243_eng.pdf. 78 See Animal Welfare Inst., Legal Protections for Nonambulatory (or “Downed”) Animals 4-12 (2019) https://awionline.org/sites/ 98 Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations, default/files/uploads/documents/19LegalProtectionsDowned.pdf. SOR/2019-38 (Can.) http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2019/2019- 02-20/html/sor-dors38-eng.html. 79 See David J. Wolfson, Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systemic Abuse of Animals Raised for Food or Food Production, 2 Animal L. 123, 135–36 (1996). See also Animal Welfare Inst., Legal Protections for Animals on Farms 4-5 (2019) https://awionline.org/ sites/default/files/uploads/documents/19LegalProtectionsFarm.pdf (enumerating the state anti-cruelty statutes that cover transport). 80 Matt Woo, Trial Set for Fayette Man Accused of Cruelty to Horses, Commercial Appeal (2008). 81 See Temple Grandin, Am. Meat Inst. Found., Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide: A Systematic Approach to Animal Welfare 4 (rev. ed., 2013) (referencing the first transportation audit in 2010). 82 Id. at 5–9. 83 Agric. Mktg. Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Agric. TRS-AHW-2010, Technical Requirements Schedule—Animal Handling and Welfare 2010 (2010). 84 Agric. Mktg. Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Agric., TRS-AHW-2013, Technical Requirements Schedule—Animal Handling and Welfare 2013 (2013). 85 Id.

April 2021

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT ❊ PAGE 10 ­­­­­­